Posted 6 years ago on Jan. 29, 2012, 10:35 a.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If the money in a society has become concentrated in a few hands, and must be borrowed in order to fuel the economy, so that it is owed (with interest) to those same few hands, then society itself becomes a thrall to the few. In fact, the only way society reclaims a portion of that wealth is through taxation. When you consider this statement, it is not only reasonable and proper to tax the wealthy, it's reasonable and proper to tax them MORE.

279 Comments

The wealthy argue that they are the creators of their wealth and should not be taxed more. What is wrong with this is that if you look at almost any wealthy individual, you will find that a plethora of public investment made their fortune possible. For instance, studies have shown that about 80 % of basic research that leads to private development is by the public sector. The computer and the internet are two examples. The computer was developed after decades of university research that was eventually handed over to private companies to use. Where would any of these internet billionaires be without that public investment? Business also benefits from public roads, publicly supported air transit. Oil companies drill oil around the world using the American military to protect their drilling sites. And how about the banking system? Wall Street makes its massive bets with money it does not have. We are backing their loans. So the reality is that the wealthy actually should pay much more for the public resources they have benefited from.

In a highly civilized society with a complex economy it is absurd to think that one's individual wealth is independent of others.

This dependence becomes ever more obvious as the economy deepens in complexity. To counter this development against its interests, Wealth is left with only one option: to subvert the "highly civilized" aspect of our society by oppressing openness and the debate for justice as well as the judicial process itself.

They claim that, but no amount on entrepreneurial ingenuity created all the land of the Americas which has both created and fueled this economy. That land was acquired through theft and murder. Without that land, there would be no wealthy elite.

This is extremely overlooked point withint he political conversations: historical karma. A nation that was made on principles of liberty and justice cannot stand if it refuses to live by them.

As we've seen, Wall Street over-relied on mathematical models, and rejected the wisdom Keynes imparted to us a long time ago.

Animal spirits--that is--irrational exuberance/panic, implies that economics cannot be accurately described by smooth curves or assumptions based on ideal conditions (like rationality). We've had to relearn this lesson, or wait, it hasn't quite sunken in just yet.

This is why protections like Glass Steagall served us so well for 70 years. Free markets cannot avoid the business cycle (it's a function of human psychology, which at this point, remains impossible to "adequately" predict on a macro scale). What we can do, however, is make sure a panic remains isolated (and doesn't permeate through our entire system), and that's what Glass Steagall did.

The computer was NOT developed after decades of university research....the first computer (Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator) built by Howard H. Aiken of Harvard, and was funded by IBM...the transistor was invented by Bell Labs and led to the evolution of the computer.......commercial USE of the computer goes all the way back the early 1950's

Indeed. Without government funding, the history of the computer would have been very different. Few companies, if any, would have invested R & D for a technology that didn't have a clear use in practice.

Your claim is that the government gave money to private industry and they in-turn endowed university research? again, back that up....

You boobs like to pretend that the government WAS an all knowing and benevolent organization working only for the good of the people, but NOW it's bought and sold by "the rich"....you need to do a little more research...you are simply wrong. Do some research on who funded the campaigns of your Hero's Wilson and FDR.....

Prior to 1947, Bell Laboratories and the manufacturing arm of the Bell System, Western Electric, were extensively involved in the development of communications used during World War II.

Bell Laboratories developed most of the technology used by the national and Government/Military telephone networks during the century prior to 1947. Bell Labs had one of the most senior positions in the military research arena (and still does). Communications control devices are useful in controlling telephones, but are also useful in computers, and in controlling weapons, missiles, and etc. Case in point: the Light Amplification through Stimulated Emission of Radiation (LASER), commonly used as a targetting device today.

Many businesses, such as American Research and Development, American-Bell Computers, Digital Equipment Corporation, and others, emerged under the aegis of Bell Labs and the Bell System during those decades without the public ever really knowing they were commercial extensions of Bell System projects - as The Bell System was at the time not legally allowed to engage in such commercial ventures.

Many of the intellectual properties belonging to Bell Labs, now privately owned largely by AT&T, were paid for when Bell Labs was part of a public utility.

"You boobs like to pretend that the government WAS an all knowing and benevolent organization working only for the good of the people" Nobody here said that. What was said that government has done a lot of basic research that made private sector wealth possible. There are things that government has to do that the private sector will not. Basic R and D has been one of those things. And the fact of the matter is that to date the evil government has produced a lot of R and D.

This timeline has several references of public university research. It also has many references to publicly funded research and product creation by private sector players. Either of these cases are situations were the public paid for the investment and has some rights of claim over gains made from it.

I have checked my facts. What you are missing in your statements is that those companies hired local college professors and researchers to develop their products. The information they provided was based on years of research. I worked in electrical engineering companies since the 1980's. The companies routinely would have local public university professors come in and actually provide the guidelines of how to design the products.

Here is a link that provides a glimpse of computer development. And what that has to do with everything here is that it shows how the people of wealth almost always got it by developing technologies bought and paid for by the general public. Therefore, they should not balk at paying back the people that made their fortune possible in the first place.

Actually, this is wrong. The first computer was an analogue mechanical device designed by Charles Babbage in the 19th century. His assistant, The lovely Ada Lovelace, wrote the first algorithms for this machine. Interestingly, this machine by Babbage, the Analytical Engine, is Turing complete. Due to a lack of funds the machine was never built. Nonetheless, working replicas have since been built to prove that his concept worked in practice.

I am aware of Babbages work. The point I was trying to make is that first digital computers that would begin the computer revolution were based off of many years of research at public universities. Another point is that the modern computer would likely never have come to be had it not been for government research in the 20th century. Private businesses for the most part do not do BASIC research.

The abacus nor the Jacquard Loom are Turing complete. They cannot be called computers. They are calculators. The Analytical Engine features if/else loops and other required functionalities which are needed for Turing completeness. Babbage's Analytical Engine was the first computer. Period.

Fine, fine. The abacus was probably the first computer and was most likely created by some Egyptian or Babylonian mathematician working for a King.

In practical parlance, a computer must be Turing complete. I think you would be angry if I advertised a calculator as a computer in the newspaper and you drove all the way down to my house only to realize it wasn't what you thought it would be. I would then say, "Mr. Slammers, even a mere abacus is a computer. What are you mad about?".

Democracy is a code word for capitalism. When the US exports democracy - often at the barrel of a gun, it is really exporting capitalism, the purpose of which is of course to utterly annihilate any system that could compete with it, or worse, diminish its profit.

Did FriendlyObserverA have a life-altering experience or are you that retard's comeuppance?

Non Sequiter. Your facts do not correlate. Regimes and dictatorial Authoritarianism over people is not related to Socialism. One is political, the other economic. There are Democratic-Socialist countries in Europe functioning fairly well that do not engage in "jailed, murdered, and FORCED into suffering" people.

There may not be a dozen, but there are quite a few. Consider this quote off of Conservapedia:

"Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that combines democracy, civil liberties, and socialism. It is an ideology that is in opposition to most mainstream American political discourse, which considers socialism synonymous with dictatorship and capitalism synonymous with democracy. However, this is not how democratic socialists view the world. Democratic socialists are not as ideologically rigid as Marxists and other Communists and will usually allow private enterprise to exist but will strictly regulate it. Some Democratic Socialist countries in the First World include the Scandinavian countries and France. Emerging socialist democracies in the Third World include Venezuela and Bolivia (although the former and sometimes the latter are considered dictatorships by many in the American mainstream, it is not known whether this is because of human rights abuses or just an ideological disagreement)."

Social Democracies do not necessarIly eliminate Capitalism. Social, in this context, refers to programs (usually associated with higher taxes) that fund government sponsored agencies that provide ALL citizens with benefits. In the US, this would be programs like Social Security and Medicare.

There is great confusion on the part of many people regarding Social Democracy vs. Democratic Socialism. Socialism, by its original definition, was a planned economy that meant that the government oversaw production and regulated it in an attempt to keep it from spiraling into what Capitalism does -- concentrating wealth into the hands of the few. That is not the same as countries that are Social Democracies (like Sweden for instance) that still have capitalism at work, but see to it that ALL of their citizens are well taken care of through government sponsored programs such as healthcare, childcare, upper and lower education, unemployment, etc.

It is interesting to note that 92% of Americans across the board from all classes and incomes favor the Swedish model. Please see the below link that supports this assertion on my part.

Capitalism does not fully eliminate socialism neither. When we look at the US many schools are run socially and many highways .. plus many other programs socially run .. SS is certainly not capitalist funded.

when buying a stock, sure the principle investment may have been earned , but the gain is surely not. and if your suggesting the gain is than reinvested .. I don't know what you would call that .. double piggy back riding ?

again..tell that to those who need and use the money to expand their idea's and bring them to market....most are more than happy to pay a share of the profits to those who finance their success......and in that way, it IS earned, for without it, there is no new industry/commerce

Is it really? I can only call your attention to a response by FriendlyObserverB elsewhere in this discussion who states:

"In a capitalist society , wealth is created off of the backs of the working class. I believe it is called exploitation.

Basically wealth is "harvested "

Like this: I hire you to bake a pie . When done the pie is mine. I pay you a wage . But the pie is mine to sell at a greater price than it cost to produce. I do not need to know how to bake the pie, that is why I hired you; I harvested your ability and made profit .. accumulation of this profit becomes wealth, which I am under no obligation to share with you. What I will probably do is build a larger factory and hire more employees to bake more pies . This will potentially increase my wealth . but will have no effect on you , you will simply bake pies as you were hired . The gain and profit will be all mine. The wealth will be all mine."

in your silly little analogy the person hiring and building the factory to make pies is providing the facility and raw materials to make the pie, and providing the marketing of the pie to consumers...a HUGE component of the economic system...providing the person with the skill (who COULD have marketed his own pies to consumers) the means to use that skill...and you fools call that exploitation....hardly...

Well, perhaps I should not have pasted FriendlyObserverB's response to another poster's comment into our discussion, since his/her words are not my own, so we will press on.

First, did you read and digest the entire PDF? Assuming for the sake of argument that your definition of wealth is correct, and that all wealth is earned, then it is an undeniable FACT that the capitalistic system as practiced in the US does not result in a fair and equitable earnings ratio for its citizens. Just look at the 3 pie charts in the PDF. Sweden's highest quintile is 36% vs. the US quintile is 84% --- a HUGE difference!!! There is a huge disparity of wealth, regardless of how it is "earned", and 92% of Americans obviously favor a more equitable distribution as indicated in the pie charts.

I guess that depends on your definition of "fair and equitable"....I tend to see that as income flowing to those who's effort creates results and upon those results reward is based...not on the effort itself....

The disparity of contribution and participation is much greater than the disparity in wealth and income.....

ALL net worth (wealth) in the US is equal to roughly 53 trillion dollars, which is equal to less than five years combined total personal income......(about 12 trillion per year based on 2009 numbers)..and when you consider that much of modern Wealth is also based on equities held but never purchased (like stock in Microsoft for Gates, Facebook for Zuckerberg, Berkshire Hathaway for Buffett, etc)..then income has even less to do with wealth in a real sense....and there is no "real" concentration...as 10-ish trillion dollars is consumed/saved each year by the "99%" (total income with the income of the top 1% income factored out)

Even in the most exaggerated distribution projections of the wealth concentrated at the top (the 1%, who earn about 20% of yearly income) of 45-ish %.....it is only equal to two years total income.....

so, it's NOT an issue of wealth disparity but rather, and issue of financial responsibility, lifestyle choices and saving.......

The "99%" consumes the equivalent of the 1%'s "wealth" in less than 3 years......

Just so I am crystal clear about your assertions, are you saying that the 10-ish trillion of the 99% somehow equates over time (3 years?) to the 45-ish trillion of the 1%? If that is what you are talking about, it is stating the obvious. But that argument, if true, is "apples and oranges" since a real comparison would be how much they earn during the same amount of time. Maybe I am not fully understanding you and require clarification of your point, or a re-wording of it.

It is quite obvious to me after reading a number of your responses that you are a highly intelligent person deeply committed to arguing in favor of retaining the status quo. Are you an actual member of the 1% (that starts at about $370k per year and up)? The 10%? 20%? I certainly acknowledge your right to privacy in this regard and can kindly tell me to mind my own business. But it would be helpful to me personally to understand what you have to lose in a reformed system that seeks more equitable distribution of income based on modification of the current rules. I also am having a hard time understanding your defense in light of the clear data that 92% of Americans believe the current wealth distribution is, in a word, unfair. What is your defense? Are you saying that the 92% are misguided, uninformed, ignorant? What is it, precisely, that puts you in the assumed 8% that do not believe the US distribution is unfair?

the 1% doesn't have 45 trillion, I said that the exaggerated projection is 45% of wealth, which would be roughly 24 Trillion, which is equal to 2+ years of total income of the 99%....nothing more

I am making the point that the wealth of the 1% when compared to the yearly income of the 99% (both categories which I am using only because of their use here...as they do not represent any "split" in philosophy or "class") is not a substantial amount of ALL wealth in the system and that it isn't a 45/55% split of the overall available value of the system itself that is held by the highest earners and wealth holders, as the yearly consumption is a greater factor in the possible wealth of all income earners if they were to use sound financial philosophy........there is no shortage of "wealth" or "income" available...only a shortage of those who manage their resources, large or small, wisely....

Personally I have been members of all groups up to and including the top 10%...and in EVERY case the changes were due to changes in my own behavior...

I read that paper, and the results of surveys are often created by the way the questions are posed.....I think with a clear explanation as to the real circumstances of wealth, effort, and consumption, I think most Americans would understand and be in favor of the system we now have...

Make no mistake, I am NOT in favor of status quo, I am in favor of the market system, but the current constraint of government is and obstacle to that......and, I can agree that some of it comes from favoritism and cronys of the ruling elite..

But, the problem is, the more intervention government takes into business the more business will attempt to intervene in government...the idea that one can exist without the other is naive and unsophisticated......as are those who believe in it..

You say you are "in favor of the market system". To what degree? Are you an advocate of Ayn Rand's completely unhindered and unregulated free market, or do you favor some type of control to prevent a "Darwinistic" or "Wild West" type of business environment from putting us where we are today, i.e. repeal of Glass-Steagall just to name a quick example? The SEC was created for the express purpose of imposing regulations and limits because, when it did not exist, the unbridled greed of those with the financial muscle to do so used every trick they knew, sometimes legal and sometimes not (insider trading), to build wealth to unheard of proportions. It is an obvious fact that, with a certain small percentage of the population at least, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Again, just trying to understand you better.

In the study, the pie charts were unlabeled. The participants had no way of knowing that the charts represented actual wealth distribution in real countries (US and Sweden), and one chart was fictional/theoretical with the quintiles evenly divided into 20% pie slices. For all they new, all 3 charts could have been fictional/theoretical. Under those operating constraints of the study, 92% chose Sweden. How do you explain the data to a blind-response study like that?

you make a strong claim and reasonable too. The major problem I see is that the cronyism seems to be getting more rampant as deregulation increases. MAsy energy, enron, british petroleum, and a host of other bad apples that are making the whole tree look cheap has me riling against more deregulation and tax credits. From a simplistic view, I'd say if the uber rich did not have that extra cash they could not so severally hinder the political process. Also, those bad apples that keep falling from the tree creates a moral hazard that i believe a lot of people wish to address.

I argued with a Republican the other day. He was not a particularly wealthy person, but he seemed to have all the talking points shunted into his brain. When I asked why he was so angry with Obama, he replied that it was because he wanted to raise the capital gains tax from 15%. He claimed that the money had already been taxed as corporate profits and Obama wanted to tax it again for the sake of fairness. He said that was Socialism and that's why he disliked Obama. What is your opinion on that?

Well I guess that means we must have been Socialist between 1940 and 1980 when capital gains taxes were far far higher, and the top marginal tax rate was over 80 %. You know what though, living through those years, I never new of anyone worrying about how to pay for a needed surgery. I never knew anyone who lost their pension they paid into all their lives because a bankruptcy court ruled that workers must loose it but the CEO can keep his $10 million a year pension. I don't remember anyone being told their Medicare is being cancelled while even more tax breaks and subsidies are going to be given to corporations. I don't recall paid vacation as being something only for the elite. Hey Socialism doesn't sound so bad!

No I was not. The 70's had issues - a big one being inflation. As bad as everyone thought that was then, things were not nearly as bad as now. I worked my way through college in those years with a part time job (did not need loans), and had inexpensive health insurance. I even had two weeks of paid vacation from my part time job! And most people I knew were in a similar situation. And in those years after graduation I landed a full time job with good benefits. I never saw scrappers combing my neighborhood for sustenance money like they do now. I did not know homeless people like I do now.

Capital gains are calculated when you sell and investment and make a gain in profit. The government doesn't consider this a wage earned so they tax it at a different rate. Ironically the extreme wealthy made their wealth through this buy and sell method , and they argue they worked hard for their wealth ? go figure..

In a capitalist society , wealth is created off of the backs of the working class. I believe it is called exploitation.

Basically wealth is "harvested "

Like this: I hire you to bake a pie . When done the pie is mine. I pay you a wage . But the pie is mine to sell at a greater price than it cost to produce. I do not need to know how to bake the pie, that is why I hired you; I harvested your ability and made profit .. accumulation of this profit becomes wealth, which I am under no obligation to share with you. What I will probably do is build a larger factory and hire more employees to bake more pies . This will potentially increase my wealth . but will have no effect on you , you will simply bake pies as you were hired . The gain and profit will be all mine. The wealth will be all mine.

Although you put it in a very cynical light, that's pretty much what I was looking for. Wealth is created when you take a raw material and put human labor into it to make it valuable. Does that mean Wall Street creates no wealth?

Yes Wall street also creates wealth for investors willing to invest in the pie making business financially but not physically. With this some of the profit generated by the pie making company is than shared with investors.

Well it's all a gamble really .. The pie maker gambles an investment in the hopes his pies will sell .. but it's more of a calculated gamble .. in fact this gamble ties into what Adam Smith coins , the invisible hand.. Adam smith believed what was needed will be provided . also known as supply and demand. So it's not so much as a gambler bets on the throw of a dice..

by increasing social pressure you mean bang louder drums ? when a child throws a tantrum they do it for attention , but it doesn't always work .. protesting seems like a childs tantrum .. surely there is a more civilized way of making change..? after all we have democracy; the right and power of vote .

This part I don't find clearly understood? Why would the pie company have an outstanding loan ? sure perhaps for the initial startup .. but than the profits should eventually over take the debt ? otherwise there is no wealth .. so can you explain this theory of businesses borrowing money .. ?

Business borrow money for many reasons such as reinvesting in the business to buy new equipment or to expand. For instance when United Airlines buys new airplanes they don't have enough profit to fund that so they have to borrow that money.

"Wealth is created when you take a raw material and put human labor into it to make it valuable."

Putting "human labor" into something does not make it "valuable". The importance or usefulness or demand for something is what determines the "value" or what something is "worth" in a society.

You might take some raw materials and labor extensively over them and produce something that no one else wants, needs, or finds important. If you do this for your own satisfaction it's not a "job". No one has to pay you for doing it.

If you do it AND you find people want, need, or find it important enough to pay you to do it, you can CHOOSE whether or not you sell it or keep it. You can choose to go to "work" for someone else who pays you a wage for your "human labor".

You may highly value what you've created or made, but if no one else does, then it is only "valuable" to you.

"Financial Wealth" is created when you have more money or assets than you need to cover all of your expenses. It is "surplus" money or assets. The more surplus you have, the wealthier you are.

Wall Street is merely a vehicle/ infrastructure through which money and commodities, securities, investments trade hands. Wall Street cannot make someone "financially wealthy" any more than it can make someone "financially poor". People make choices as to whether or not they spend more than they take in, or take in and save more than they spend. One choice produces wealth, the other produces poverty.

You miss the point, Betsy. Moving wealth around is not creating wealth. Money can represent value, but only in circumstances that permit it. In an emergency where conventions are no longer followed money is worthless. Value only actually exists in finished goods.

The person you hired to bake the pie agreed to do that amount of labor for the amount of money you offered. In America, the person who baked the pie has a choice. He can bake the pie for the agreed upon wage, OR he can bake his own pies and sell them to make a profit. He can harvest his own ability, make a profit, and is under no obligation to share that profit with anyone else.

A "wealthy" person can only hire you to bake pies-and harvest your ability-if you agree to be hired by that person, and thus have your ability harvested by someone else. So why do it?

But here's the simple truth that ALL wealthy people understand. (Which can be found on any of literally millions of websites):

"The secrets to developing wealth are not really secrets.

Save more than you spend.

Earn more when you can.

Spend less when you can.

Earn interest on the wealth you already have.

"If you do those four things, over time you’ll be wealthy. Even if you just do the first one, you won’t be living paycheck to paycheck for long."

"The biggest reason people without wealth don’t start practicing those four healthy habits is emotion. If they earn a lot they feel as though they should be able to spend a lot. Or they feel that certain aspects of their lifestyle (a nice car, eating at restaurants or expensive clothes) are necessities. Maybe your tastes aren’t so extravagant. Regardless, if you’re stressing about money then you’re doing something wrong. Until you find out what it is you’ll never find a way to reduce that stress"

"The simple (and hopefully not too painful) truth about building wealth is that it doesn’t happen by following some complicated process that’s only available to the wealthiest 1% of the population. The secret to building wealth is simply spending less than you earn."

"Once you get the basics down, there are some more complicated things you can do to add some extra punch to your wealth-building power; 401Ks, health savings accounts, etc.. But no matter how much money you earn, if you spend more than you earn, you will never be wealthy."

The knowledge on how to grow wealth, or "harvest your own talent" is available EVERYWHERE in our society. Books, online, college courses, Chamber of Commerce events, seminars, audio tapes, video tapes, mentors, internships, grants, etc. You can find it for free OR pay for it. Knowledge is not discriminatory. Knowledge is power.

One question that puzzles me to this day, why has our Federally Funded Department of Education not insisted upon making this basic and easily understood knowledge a mandatory part of every curriculum-from elementary to collegiate-in this country?

just one question, the wealthy spend more than I spend and yet they are wealthier than I ?

okay a 2nd question, the wealthy have the advantage of hiring and setting up business .. where as a baker may have to look for an employer and therefore lose out on the profits of the business how do you explain this ? ..In America.

They CAN spend more than you spend-they have more to spend. If you want to be able to spend more-you must either decrease your current expenditures or increase your current income.

A baker may have to look for an employer-BUT he may also NOT have to look for an employer. A baker only works for an employer IF that baker agrees to "sell his labor" for the price the employer is offering to pay. A baker may think his labor is more valuable than what any employer is willing to pay-and he is free to think that. But it is the society that baker lives in that sets the "value" of what is produced by the baker-not the baker or the baker's boss. If the society doesn't think the baker's labor produces something worth paying a LOT for, the baker will never earn "a lot" for his labor with or without an employer taking the "profit".

If the baker would like to work for himself he can either start small and sell his goods in a limited manner, saving up "the profit" from his product until he can afford to purchase and run his own business, or he can apply for a loan or try to find a group of personal acquaintances that agree to be the "investors" in his business.

Not everyone WANTS to be "the boss". Some people would rather earn less AND not have to deal with all the details of "running" something from the top down. The worker has the "advantage" of being able to do a specific job for a specific amount of time for a specific wage-and nothing else.

I remember one of the first things I learned in Economics is that like other developed nations of the world, we have a "mixed economy." That is we have a market economy with some government intervention. In fact there has never been a working model of a modern economy otherwise. Fox News and the fanatical right wing likes to throw in the scary "S" word; socialism whenever there is talk of taxing the wealthy more, or using government to benefit the little people instead of the wealthy. There is a programmed knee jerk response to tar and feather anyone suggested of being an evil commy socialist.

Exactly who are the little people? I don't think laborers are little people. I don't think people born with less money are little people. I don't like the term little people unless you're referring to oompa-loompas.

High taxes makes them invest in tax deductible business expenses to avoid the high taxes. New equipment, perks to keep the good employees, open new offices, expand their business. This puts money back into the economy benefiting everyone.

With low taxes they take the profits in salary and send it to the Wall Street Casino which produces nothing and benefits only the winners. Btw, they losers are the Main Street suckers who think investing in stocks is cool.

no u misunderstood i never stated i knew exactly when the consumer protection agency was formed, I first contacted them on july 27th 2011, but i knew exactly when i was defrauded by wells fargo, and that they received a hundred and some odd million dollar fine from wells fargo.

Agree
This was once the words of Ronald Reagan
"e’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

Today the rich have more tax breaks than ever. I it fair Romney paid less in taxes than many secretaries ?

The right crying about the deficet yet cutting taxes for the rich which increase debt. Then they want to abolish programs for the poor

I know what you mean. Romney earning over 20 million and paying an effective tax rate of 13.9% is sickening. The guy owns 6 manors! I pay more in taxes (as a percent of my income) and I don't own a single home. A government of, by, and for We the People was not established on this land to coddle spoiled rich people.

why dont we just take the wealth from them, its how we got america. White men took it from my ancestors, and my family hasnt owned any land since. Taxing the wealthy doesnt help the poor, instead, we should make it illegal for one man to possess over 100 million dollars, and distribute the other wealth to those who have never made over $30k in a year for instance.

Because in America we believe in the rule of law. We also believe in protecting the rights of the minority. These are both principles that make America a better place, even exceptional. It isn't for you or me to decide who gets what no matter how just our POV might be. Also, I don't have a massive invincible Robot Army to enforce my will on people. But that's totally secondary...honest.

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
— Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949

The only thing the American people have that the politicians want is their vote.
We the people have to hold the politicians accountable for their actions.
They take an oath of office and have to abide by the Constitution of The United States.
We need lawyers to file law suites against politicians who serve themselves or their party
and not the Constitution of The United States or the oath of office.
The upcoming elections are critical to our future so be very carful who you vote for.
Here is a video of Bill Moyers about Presidential Debates.

The problem is massive inequality. For prosperity to endure it needs to be shared
Mass production demands mass consumption, but people can’t afford to consume if the wealth an economy generates is concentrated at the top.
A giant suction pump has drawn into a few hands, an increasing portion of currently produced wealth in this country.
As in a poker game where the chips are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands; the other people can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out, the game stops.

Exactly. Its the same thing with the living wage argument...Just because the minimum wage increased by 2 dollars doesn't mean that McDonalds suddenly started charging $1.50 for dollar menu items. They are going to charge what the market will bear, or they will lose their business to a competitor.

Indeed, and in fact it's not even class warfare. As Buffett points out, the idea that a billionaire should pay less in taxes than his secretary, is absurd. The right keeps shifting the goal post. Prior to Bush's tax cuts, the idea that the tax rates in place during the Clinton administration represented an assault against the rich, wasn't part of our popular, national discourse (while today it's become the dogma of the right).

Exactly so. The only way that wealth can get back into the economy once it has been harvested by the few is if it is borrowed from the wealthy or more properly taxed from them and used to invest in infrastructure, education, etc.

That in no way contradicts the idea that if I start with a huge portion of the money and loan it out to you so that, if you do something profitable, I will gain even more money, it not only creates a despotic concentration of wealth but the system can only be sustained by an expansion of the money supply and the wealthiest are always the wealthiest because the economy is on loan from them. And "everybody has access to it" is an outright falsehood. Tell that to the guy who can't even get a car loan. Is that just ignorance or do you really live in an Alice-in-Wonderland universe?

If I do something profitable with your money then I make money to so if I was poor beforehand I am now rich. No the money supply does not necessarily increase to meet the demand. The price of money will go up or down to meet the real demand. This does not include the expected inflation premium.

Yes everybody has access to capital. It has become harder but more regulations will do that. In this risk environment you need good credit. So tell the guy looking for a car loan to pay down his debt.

It's purely financial. If your credit is bad you won't get a loan in this environment. You want more regulations and you got the results. Isn't that what you want. Only risk adverse investments should be made.

people are only in control based on the information they are provided with...another classic component of collectivist regimes of history....disinformation bureaus to "steer" public opinion toward that held by the ruling class....

you are advocating fantasyland.......we LIVE in a classless society, people move up and down the socioeconomic ladder many times in a working lifetime...

Your idea is equalizing outcomes, which is IMPOSSIBLE....the disparity in talent and ability is not something you can overcome....some will always produce more than others, and deserve to be compensated justly for that creation...

it is impossible because you must have as a basis for this so-called "democratically" run society of co-operation an all powerful state to force the "co-operation" and it is by the very nature of a social collective community not open to participation....you are forced to participate and accept the conditions of the Mob enforcement or suffer punishment.....not just punishment for failing at your own efforts, but unjust punishment for expecting equitable trade for those efforts based on your own decisions.....

people control their own lives now, they make decisions and there are consequences for those decisions that may effect the ability to effect making decisions in the future...any person you show me that feels they aren't in control of their lives you can backtrack and find a time when they were and made poor choices and engaged in foolish behaviors...

People having control over their own lives is not what you seek, you seek to have control over others who you disagree with, by force of the Mob...which is tyranny, plain and simple......

I don't care what that academic hack has to say about anything........ protected from reality in his ivory towers...if you choose to be impressed by a man with little or no practical knowledge...so-be-it, but I don't...

In our system you have the right of non-participation in ANY corporation, you can choose not to engage in commerce with any person or entity you wish (except government) no corporation tyrannizes you unless you give them permission through your acceptance of their terms..

The idea that you think you are due payment and shares of the efforts of others because you have decided that they aren't what you like in the world and are afraid and unprepared to go out and create your own reality, is just sad, sad and foolish of you...IF you have such interest in your ideas, and there are "actually" so many who share your perspective..then go out and compete with the corporations you hate...

All the net worth (wealth) in the US is equal to less than 5 years of the yearly total income...that leaves a MASSIVE amount of resources for anyone who chooses to make an attempt to create something..

But, that isn't what you desire....you want to take from others because you believe and/or someone has convinced you that it would be easier and require less effort to do so.....and you somehow believe that you will get a share of the plunder for yourself.....

It's an idiotic failure of an ideology, and it will never work because wealth, in ALL farms follows the effort and results created to assign rewards to....and you cannot change the natural system, as hard or as much as you try....

Perhaps I am on the wrong forum post, but I seem to recall that you and I were having a discussion about Social Democracies / Democratic Socialism vs. Capitalism. I had requested that you read the entire link below and get back with me. Did you, and I just missed it? I've almost got more to keep up with than I can handle on these forums and may have to cut back on my participation.

I reject the idea of wealth distribution......All net worth in this country (>53Trillion<) is equal to less than 5 years of yearly total individual income (>12Trillion<) of which the top income level, the 1%, earn about 20% of, so about >10Trillion< passes through the hands and is consumed or saved, every year by the so-called 99%.....

and much of that total net worth is based on un-purchased equities such as stock in personal companies valued by the market based on a percentage of shares purchased and desired by others....

The distribution reward of income is based on effort and results, as in :

Effort + Results = Reward

Not by some arbitrary system created by the "Rich"....they produce and market products that you can buy, or not, by choice...and distribution of wealth is created and directed by consumers....except that done by confiscation and force by government.....from those who produce TO those who only consume....

So what you are saying is that you want Robin Hood to swoop in and rob from the rich and give to you? That's just not the way that it works. No one owes you anything and the only way that you are going to get anything in life is to get off your ass, get out of our parks, and GET A DAMN JOB! That's how you become someone who has money.

No. What I am saying is If the money in a society has become concentrated in a few hands, and must be borrowed in order to fuel the economy, so that it is owed (with interest) to those same few hands, then society itself becomes a thrall to the few. In fact, the only way society reclaims a portion of that wealth is through taxation. When you consider this statement, it is not only reasonable and proper to tax the wealthy, it's reasonable and proper to tax them MORE.

Feel free to let me know what part of that you don't understand. Maybe I'll message you the Dr Suess version.

I mean WTF. Mr. Banker Sir. Why when I make a payment on my loan, the major portion goes to paying the interest? I mean interest does not earn interest - principal earns interest. So to be fair, should not the principal be paid 1st, and then the interest earned on the time of the loan? I mean you are getting your money for the loan, don't you think that by extending the principal amount that you are perhaps getting more than you deserve?

If we tax the wealthy what guarantee do we have that any of that money gets into the hands of the people who need it. When the dmv took my last 1000 dollars in savings last year, cause they said my check engine light was on and i couldnt drive to work how does taxing the rich fix that?

When the consumer finance protection agency got 100 million dollars from wells fargo for defrauding 10,000 people, including myself, which destroyed my credit, and i have yet to see a dime of it for two years of dealing with them, again, how does taxing the rich help the people who need it? We need to abolish our government and put people in office who know what the fuck they are doing.

ill send you the emails i was just looking over them not 5 minutes ago. it was 2 years ago that wells fargo defrauded me, but i never stated that i knew exactly when that government agency was around, so give me your email and ill forward my complaint status, and their so called "resolution with the banks"

Why don't you just copy and paste it as a personal message. So, the fact is you're looking to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for some sort of resolution to your problem. Also the DMV story seems fishy. The DMV usually doesn't inspect your car unless you've been pulled over and sited and even then it's usually a cop who inspects. And an engine check light is a warning light. Nobody would mess with you over that. Very fishy story...

well due to the complexity of our society, i simplified my story, u know most states require SAFETY AND EMISSION INSPECTION they were the ones that refused me my sticker so that i could drive to work, ultimately ending up in dmv responsibility.

yes i have been fighting with wells fargo, and then the 3 credit agencies, and then in july i filed a complaint with the consumer protection agency so i have been fighting over the past few years an issue, not just with the consumer protectino agency, (im not an exellent writer but i have alot of experiences to share), what is funny is that in my emails you can see all they did was forward my complaint to wells fargo, and then send it back saying it was resolved, and get this, the consumer protection agency is hiring another "complaint resolution specialists" starting pay of $98k to 148k per year." and I have to say it, OMFG!!!

well id like to find out who made dmv rules the way it is, so we can know where he lives, he can be the first we take out vengenance when teh system collapses. and all the other government workers who persecuted us too.

You have a better grasp of history than me. Call me Sara if you like, but remember, you can't be bought off. you can't be troll-duped . You don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And you absolutely will not stop, ever, until America is free of this capitalist insurgency...go to it!

Well there is at our most basic core of beliefs that the private sector will create careers. We don't want jobs we want careers. Right now we have a recession and just as all recession before it, it will end. The government does not need to get involved or anything. Let the private sector handle their stuff and let the government handle the public sector. When the economy is bad you just have to work hard and wade through it. People fail to look back in our nations history, the economy always went up and down at certain points the majority of wealth was concentrated in a small amount. Everything works out in the end the economy regulates itself, it has to. When it gets too big then it will collapse but then it rebuilds itself learning from the mistakes of the past.

"Well, there is at our most basic core of beliefs that the private sector will create careers." Yes, they are creating them right now for the Chinese and the Indians. Are you a complete smuck? We have overcome past difficulties when people became pissed off enough to demand government action and regulation. The private sector doesn't give a fig about you or me. That's why we have a government, to regulate the private sector.

We have a government because you and I allow there to be one. There is a government to protect our basic rights from those in the government and those not in government. The government is not there to regulate the private sector. The government is not there to regulate me. I regulate myself.

You are correct to say the wealth is borrowed back to society .. this is done through bonds which are added into the national debt.. and interest is collected and paid out of tax revenue .. and this debt as it gets larger and larger a higher percentage of tax revenue is used to pay the interest .. leaving only a small potion to recirculate back into society .. and since the wealthy have no reason to spend their accumulated wealth it grows larger and larger feeding and growing with time. soon it would consume the entire tax revenue as interest owed .. which is partly why we consider the system unsustainable.

The money is always in the system and is available for everyone to use. Examples abound of new companies that were funded by wealthy investors (angels) where the founders took very little risk and made out significantly. Just look at Facebook or Apple.

The other issue is do you realize that when you increase the price on something (tax) you will produce less (revenue). What would happen if you taxed the top 10% at 90%? They would then have the incentive to avoid taxes and the absolute revenue that comes from this group will decline as a percentage of GDP. If this occurs, your only hope is that the government will spend this money wisely therefore increasing GDP faster. When so much of the budget goes into defense spending and transfer payments, this is highly unlikely.

So you are lowering the return to the middlemen who then will have less incentive to operate so you will have a lot of manufacturers producing product but no middlemen to get those product to market. There would be no Walmart's or Costcos.

If you tax Walmart their profits will be lower, hence there will be less of them since the don't have as much money to operate new stores. Without Walmsrt, Pepsi has fewer places to sell their products and can't sell as much. What am I missing?

Walmart has a net worth equal to 30% of the population. they can cut back on their profits a little and still be fine ..

what your missing , or not understanding , is that it is not a tax but a cap that I propose .. A cap would lower the price walmart can sell pepsi products for which would in fact sell more pepsi products.

So you are capping how much somebody is going to make in absolute terms so we will get a bunch of small distributors who won't get economies of scale and prices will be higher. What part of basic economics are you not getting. People work for the profit.

So you are limiting how much any manufacturer or retailer can make on any one product and that will limit their profit margin. So this will limit the incentive to produce new products and we will have less absolute product and less innovation.

So you want to limit how much profit any retailer makes. So you will limit the big box store, the Walmarts and Costcos and Amazons. There will be less of them hence less competition on price and less distribution of goods. How is this desirable?

"many" but not a significant amount. That's why stores that continue to provide a benefit to people continue to garner market share. Walmart didn't kill the small businesses, the latter killed themselves by not adapting. Just the way Amazon is changing retailing right now.

You want to keep the status quo and allow retailers a guaranteed market. Sorry, the world is a tough place. I wanted to play in the NFL and couldn't.

My proposal is to cap their gains. This will limit how much they take to begin with , and we won't have to try to get it back through taxation.

To have economic growth we need to have profit limits . Otherwise it would be like trying to fill a tire with air with a hole in the tire .. we first need to patch the hole . And with profits pouring out of the economy it becomes deflated .. even as we borrow money to try to keep it flated ..

perhaps I should have said to cap their gains is to limit their gains .. it doesn't take their gains away like a tax would .. a cap is before the fact where a tax is after the fact .. I see no similiarity. the cap will leave money in the consumers hands.. a tax would take money from the consumer .. slowing production and thus the economy .. again where as a cap would increase production ... no similiarity yet ..

Many, to avoid the TMT, will cap their pay and redirect the money to investors or back into the company. I don't have a problem with salary caps or at least one that is tied to the companies lowest paid employee.

The idea pleases everyone except one group of people; the unrighteous.
Let them gnash.
The American revolution had king George 3rd gnashing too.
Unless you suggest we bend over and let them have what they want ?
Unfettered profits simply allows the middleman to take as much as he can. Raping civilization.

Debt, you mean taking money from the people and use it to shore up bank profits? At least if they some paid taxes on of their ill-gotten gains some money would flow back into society instead of into those Swiss and Cayman Island accounts ...

Yes, or even letting them borrow from the Fed at ratios as high as 40 to 1, meaning that we the public are backing 39 / 40ths of the bet the Wall Streeter makes. We of course do not get 39/40ths of the gains. Before recent deregulation measures, leveraging limits were about 11 to 1. In the name of "less government" one measure of deregulation allowed investment banks to borrow much more.

you said that it is just common sense....tell me how it is common sense

after all, "the rich" already pay the largest share of taxes, much more in shares of taxes than they receive in shares of income...

and, before one of your like-minded drones posts some nonsense about state-and local taxes, please refer to the form 1040a and instructions where state, local, property, and sales tax are deductible items and the income used to pay them TOTALLY untaxed at the federal level, so they do not skew the results of the tax shares of various income levels...

As to common sense, you can tax people who don't have any money all day long and guess what? Are you really so stupid that I have to spell it out for you?

You want to argue tax statistics, you will need more than your ill-informed opinion. Romney is a good example of how the rich pay a much smaller proportion of their income in taxes than the middle class.

And finally, state and local taxes are only deductible if you have itemized deductions, which many in the working classes and none of the poor make enough money to have.

If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, try to baffle them with your bullshit.

Clinton's budget. LOL. Which Bush squandered on tax breaks for the super rich, which caused spiraling deficits (along with a couple of unfunded wars, of course). Thanks for bringing that up.

Still waiting for those stats, and you're still wrong on itemized deductions, and you still don't understand common sense. Alas. You can lead a moron to the facts but you can't make him understand them.

Clinton's budget? you need a history lesson, none of the budgets passed int the late 80's were "Clinton's" budgets...the Republican House wrote those budgets....and it was on the heels of the capital gains rate cut that preceded the historically low deficits..

what stats would you like?

and only those who's standard deduction would eliminate all tax liability are not benefited by itemizing....

You are a typical drone...where do you get your information.. Alternet?

nope they are Democrat budgets....supported by Obama.....and there hasn't been a budget in over 1000 days...it's all continuing resolutions....

The Republicans have only been in control of the House for a year and the senate, under Reid, just ignores legislation passed and presented by the House......This situation is ALL Democrat/Obama created...they had 2 years of total congressional control under Bush43 and then complete fillibuster-proof control of both the legislative and executive branches for 2 years....what did they do? Well, beyond destroying the economy

You don't seem to understand the concept of wealth, relatively speaking. Right now the wealthy do not pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income Americans. Mitt Romney pays only 13.9% on an income of over 20 million. Mostly that is because Romney has the money to invest and the lawyers to find the tax loopholes and the money to influence tax policy. As a middle-American you are paying 30% (which is worth vastly more to you because you have less), and you have none of the resources Romney has. How does this serve a society that seeks to be a bastion of opportunity? That's why it's common sense...Get it?

you use very minor examples to prove a rule that the examples don't support...

I am a middle income American and most of my income is taxed at the 15% rate with just a bit taxed at 25%.....

Families can earn $35,000 in AGI before they pay more than 15%, and with tax credits for children, home deductions, and state/local tax credits that can be as much as 60-70 thousand in actual income...so, your claim that the middle incomes pay 30% is wrong

I have somehow lost the thread, and thus the flow, of our original discussion (don't know where it went or if am somehow incompetent and accidentally deleted it or something --if that's possible).

Thank you for providing the response of your being middle-class and most income taxed at 15%. I assume then that you are paying most taxes as capital gains. This at least gives me a general idea of who I am talking to and why you appear to have strong beliefs about not changing the system.